However, the costs of making it actually safe could be prohibitive regardless. There is the issue of diseases. New classes of retroviruses are being discovered in humans. Even with cow's milk there is (now) a supposed danger with Bovine Leukemia Virus. Several new retroviruses have been identified in humans, and certainly these are possible sources of contamination that could be spread.

It's a fairly simple process to pasteurize it. They wouldn't sell the ice cream, which they already do, if it wasn't rigorously tested for quality control. And besides, all that aside, just because something isn't economically viable does not mean it should be made illegal. Your desire to outlaw the practice stems directly from some moral or another of yours.

But I think the source of your original post was that I was somehow attempting to legislate morality. First of all governments come with a set of ethics or morals. You can't have a rules without having reasons for them.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here - are you saying that there's good reason to outlaw the practice, or you recognise that your objection is simply rooted in your morals?

Its really that simple. Frankly, as a gay person, I think your comparison is erroneous. I hardly think you can equate orientation (which I believe is a characteristic you are born with), to commodity exchange of bodily fluids.

The comparison was made to highlight how ridiculous it is to say 'This offends my morals and therefore nobody should do it,' rather than a direct comparison (although one could make the argument that the moral outcry against people of various orientations is exactly an argument over who exchanges bodily fluids with who, snicker snicker snicker!)

Additionally, I do not believe corporations have freedoms or morals. They operate for the dollar. If women choose to individually sell their milk, sure let them. I think a private market for this could be an important step for mothers (who are willing) to share their milk with women who are unable to breatfeed (medication or disease), or perhaps even medical patients with some strange dietary requirements. Health exams would be necessary though with regulators to oversee it. Any market however would have to directly line the women up with buyers, and I do think that there should be recommendations and procedures in place to protect the health of the women. The funds should be directly transacted with no middle men and there should be health guidelines and limits placed on the amount that they can give. Even dairy farmers have limits and regulations. Even prostitutes have to submit to health exams. Even if you think that legislating such a practice is legislating morality (if not hygiene) there are still health considerations to be taken into account.

All of this is a straw man argument. Of course women selling their milk have to have rigorous health checks, for the reasons you've elucidated. No government is going to allow women to sell their product without it passing the quality-control checks in place such as the FDA or whatever, and nobody here is suggesting the women in question operate on some sort free market basis with no regulation.

What I object to is a corporate adventure that turns women into commodities. There is no "morality" at stake when curtailing a corporation.

First sentence: moral objection. Second sentence: denial of moral objection. Think about it, what if I was to say 'What I object to is a corporate adventure that turns cows into commodities. There is no "morality" at stake when curtailing a corporation.' Besides, the women in question are hardly 'commodities'. They are not slaves, they are not owned. I would argue that a regular businesswoman who spends 8 hours of her day cooped up in a cube in a sky scraper is more of a corporate commodity than a woman who sells her breastmilk away.

Yes I do think it should be illegal for corporations to control this process and to create a product market aimed at "mass' consumption. Corporations have impacts and effects: economic ones on communities and families.

You could say this about any corporation. Is it still applicable?

Those I believe we have a moral imperative to place legal limitations on.

Of course. Once again, you're arguing against a straw man. Nobody is suggesting we remove regulation or anything of that sort.

I think prostitution is horrible and has detrimental effects on women. I still believe it is their right to do what they want with their bodies. Having said that, I still think it should be illegal to having a "WalMart" style brothel. You can imagine the consequences.

While it's a little tangential, in my country prostitution was actually recently legalised, because it was recognised that women are going to be prostitutes whether it's illegal or not. With the legalisation of brothels, it's actually a lot safer for the women involved, as well as the customers. They have to pass sexual health tests every month, have a safe place to conduct their business, etc etc.

Moral outrage here is appropriate,

Says you, same as the preacher who blames gay people, or the ultra-orthodox who blame us for picking up sticks on a sunday.

This thread is getting a bit out of hand. Its just a fun topic to contemplate the ethics behind Vegan diets.

The women are screened using the same tests used for blood donors. The cost is prohibitive enough that it is unlikely to be more than a passing fad. Just a gimmick to get the ice-cream palour noticed. So relax. If they start importing milk from China, then is the time to start writing to your MP.

However, the costs of making it actually safe could be prohibitive regardless. There is the issue of diseases. New classes of retroviruses are being discovered in humans. Even with cow's milk there is (now) a supposed danger with Bovine Leukemia Virus. Several new retroviruses have been identified in humans, and certainly these are possible sources of contamination that could be spread.

It's a fairly simple process to pasteurize it. They wouldn't sell the ice cream, which they already do, if it wasn't rigorously tested for quality control. And besides, all that aside, just because something isn't economically viable does not mean it should be made illegal. Your desire to outlaw the practice stems directly from some moral or another of yours.

"In addition to providing essential nourishment to infants, human milk; i.e., breast milk, has a number of valuable uses, especially medicinal uses, for both children and adults. It has been used medicinally for thousands of years.................... However, breast milk lacks sterile and antiseptic properties if a nursing mother is infected with certain communicable diseases, such as HIV and various bacterial infections like Group B streptococcus, as breast milk can transmit such diseases to infants and other people.[33]"

I don't know that pasteurising it will necessarily destroy HIV. I'm not exactly sure all relevant retroviruses are being screened in this manner. Also there are the threat of several new retroviruses, XMRV that are not currently testable but floating around in the human population. We cannot screen for these yet, and currently there even inquiries being made into the relative safety of the blood supply.

As far as disease pathogens go, in general the farther you get away from humans the greater the morphological variances in protein structure... this usually leads to a greater immunity and less threat... The further you go away from humans on the evolutionary ladder, the more you are protecting yourself from a variety of pathogens. Retroviruses are one example. There are various parasitic infections this holds true for though as well.

This isn't a common practice so what makes you think they even know what will make it safe? No government has had to deal with this until recently. At least according to wikipedia ;p (just to show you how lazy I am! )

Do you have evidence of their safety regulations? How many times do corporations tell us something is safe to eat... only to find out otherwise? What evidence do any of us have to go one to say this practice is safe yet? Many mothers pass diseases unintentionally to their children. Some we are just now identifying.

But I think the source of your original post was that I was somehow attempting to legislate morality. First of all governments come with a set of ethics or morals. You can't have a rules without having reasons for them.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here - are you saying that there's good reason to outlaw the practice, or you recognise that your objection is simply rooted in your morals?All government is. Even life in a monastary is guided by ethics and morals... which in my mind are synonymous in rules. Maybe this is the source of our confusion?

Its really that simple. Frankly, as a gay person, I think your comparison is erroneous. I hardly think you can equate orientation (which I believe is a characteristic you are born with), to commodity exchange of bodily fluids.

The comparison was made to highlight how ridiculous it is to say 'This offends my morals and therefore nobody should do it,' rather than a direct comparison (although one could make the argument that the moral outcry against people of various orientations is exactly an argument over who exchanges bodily fluids with who, snicker snicker snicker!) (LOL. I knew somebody was going to say it!)

Additionally, I do not believe corporations have freedoms or morals. They operate for the dollar. If women choose to individually sell their milk, sure let them. I think a private market for this could be an important step for mothers (who are willing) to share their milk with women who are unable to breatfeed (medication or disease), or perhaps even medical patients with some strange dietary requirements. Health exams would be necessary though with regulators to oversee it. Any market however would have to directly line the women up with buyers, and I do think that there should be recommendations and procedures in place to protect the health of the women. The funds should be directly transacted with no middle men and there should be health guidelines and limits placed on the amount that they can give. Even dairy farmers have limits and regulations. Even prostitutes have to submit to health exams. Even if you think that legislating such a practice is legislating morality (if not hygiene) there are still health considerations to be taken into account.

All of this is a straw man argument. Of course women selling their milk have to have rigorous health checks, for the reasons you've elucidated. No government is going to allow women to sell their product without it passing the quality-control checks in place such as the FDA or whatever, and nobody here is suggesting the women in question operate on some sort free market basis with no regulation.

Several governments do. Apparently both China and Britain. None of the health officials in China seemed to even be aware that it was occurring and after finding out, many called for an end to it (according to the article I saw). This is a growing trend in several countries. I believe several restuaraunts in Europe have started doing something similar. To suggest that there are routine or even well tested standards in place for it is simply inaccurate. Those were reasons I was giving to support my premise that current state of affairs is not meeting health standards and is also in danger of creating an industry in which women are exploited and customers are put at risk. Her argument was the opposite of this. So, that doesn't seem to be a straw man argument to me... that simply sounds like I was supporting my argument with what I perceive to be facts. Correct me if I'm wrong, I dont think thats a straw man .. I was not a law or english student

In my mind, I wasn't stating those as hypothetical I believe those to be facts. So from my perspective the industry is legitimately doing things that are putting both the women and customers at risk. I see a dangerous situation that is also possibly exploitive.

What I object to is a corporate adventure that turns women into commodities. There is no "morality" at stake when curtailing a corporation.

First sentence: moral objection. Second sentence: denial of moral objection. Think about it, what if I was to say 'What I object to is a corporate adventure that turns cows into commodities. There is no "morality" at stake when curtailing a corporation.' Besides, the women in question are hardly 'commodities'. They are not slaves, they are not owned. I would argue that a regular businesswoman who spends 8 hours of her day cooped up in a cube in a sky scraper is more of a corporate commodity than a woman who sells her breast milk away.

Except that none of her body parts or fluids or being sold. At least from my understanding of business. I was always sceptical of business majors in college so I have no idea what they do in cubicles ;p

You are right to say I am imposing my morals on these individuals. But to me, corporations do not exist as a moral entity, they are collections of individuals. I am applying a moral objection to the actions of these people. I apply similar objections to the following : Murder, sweatshops, underage prostitutions, socially regressive corporate practices/corporate theft. .. etc.

In fact, every government and democracy does. Every system of rules is implicitly a system of ethics and morals. Every rule has a reason, and these reasons become necessary when the matter of interpretation arises. I would argue no group or civilisation on the planet has existed without imposing some form of moral order. The prohibition of murder for instance is a moral objection.

Just because you do not agree with the moral objection I am making, doesn't mean we can exist without them. Help me to understand the ethics /freedoms I am violating in your mind.

Yes I do think it should be illegal for corporations to control this process and to create a product market aimed at "mass' consumption. Corporations have impacts and effects: economic ones on communities and families.

You could say this about any corporation. Is it still applicable?

Yes. I should have elaborated. The health officials in China were particularly concerned about the impact this practice would have on the communities these rural women lived in. I am guessing that many of these areas already have poor nutrition and this could strain areas of development that are already having problems. This form of corporate exploitation would have a very specific impact on such communities. Additionally the women providing the milk in London were from rural areas and it sounded from their explanations like they needed the money. If they are in a financially needy situation (my assumption) then I believe that makes them vulnerable to form of exploitation that could put their personal nutrition at further risk.

IN addition to taking advantage of these women, I also suspect it has the potential to exacerbate class issues. Do you really think your CEO in a business suit would stoop to this? What about the House wives of Manhattan? I doubt it. This is practice seems like it would be vulnerable to exploitation. We institute wage controls to prohibit predatory employment practices and the exploitation of the lower classes. Imposing rules on the nature of human labor is hardly something new.

Those I believe we have a moral imperative to place legal limitations on.

Of course. Once again, you're arguing against a straw man. Nobody is suggesting we remove regulation or anything of that sort.Actually now your using a straw man argument. NOWHERE did I saw I thought you were advocating for the removal of regulation. I believe you think there is regulation in place but I do not see it.

Once again I am stating that it is not in place, and that currently NO KNOWN systems of safeguards are in place that could accurately address the safety hazards at this time. No government has, up until very recently, dealt with this on a scale that would have warranted necessary investigations. This also might be the source of our confusion. If you know of regulatory practices the women were being put through, please explain, I might be genuinely ignorant of the facts here.(If you are interested in the disease chronic fatigue syndrome (cfs) or in prostate cancer, you will be interested to know that there is a new retrovirus, similar to HIV that is now known to be in the population, and some studies tie it to several human diseases. it is not a blood born illness apparently but is transmitted in lymph fluids. some have speculated that it is transmitted from mothers to children, and there are no reliable tests currently to even determine if a person has it. the virus is difficult to test for but has been implicated in several diseases).

I think prostitution is horrible and has detrimental effects on women. I still believe it is their right to do what they want with their bodies. Having said that, I still think it should be illegal to having a "WalMart" style brothel. You can imagine the consequences.

While it's a little tangential, in my country prostitution was actually recently legalised, because it was recognised that women are going to be prostitutes whether it's illegal or not. With the legalisation of brothels, it's actually a lot safer for the women involved, as well as the customers. They have to pass sexual health tests every month, have a safe place to conduct their business, etc etc.

Moral outrage here is appropriate,

Says you, same as the preacher who blames gay people, or the ultra-orthodox who blame us for picking up sticks on a sunday.

What about the person that condemns sweat shops? Or any other form of exploitation? Are you saying there are no appropriate moral objections, or are you just trying to say mine are extreme?

Don't lump me in with people that are making arguments I'm not. That is tangential, and worse than a straw man. Comparing their apples, to my oranges doesn't help the debate.

If you dislike my moral objections, show me other ethical standards that are more important than the ones I am giving preference to. All people make moral/ethical distinctions. When a contradiction arises between the two, we make a choice as to which one we feel, in that situation, is most important. I don't see how you can't? The question is always a matter of preference in my opinion. Collectively we agree to some behaviour and not to others. I don't see how bringing up an orthodox preacher is any less a straw man argument. (LOL, i'm not sure I would even know).

I don't mean to be offensive. In order to understand your argument I need you to help me understand the way you prioritise your feelings about ethical limits on personal freedoms. Perhaps If I understand this I will understand your argument better.

**Also I support the legalisation of prostitution (I don't think we disagree on that), but my understanding is that the way it is implemented in Nevada, is that there are limits on the amount of money the brothel can garnish. I want to make sure that a similar set of regulations is in place so that the majority market value of their milking efforts are returned to them. It would be really horrible in my opnion if they were selling it for a dollar, and it was going to customers at something like 30. Those are my moral objections to exploitation. I also think that such regulations make better economic sense in the long run though.

*** Further reflection. I think my use of the word "sacred" is throwing a lot of people. I believe the child and mother share a "sacred" bond...because the child is essentially leaching off the mother in order to survive. I do believe that doing this has massive health effects on the mother, and that hormonally speaking there could be longterm reprucussions for keeping her in that state. I don't mean to imply the ingestion of non-baby's or relatives is morally indefensible in and of itself. I'm actually curious to know whether or not it could be of help to patients with celiac disease and chron's disease. The nutritional risk it provides to the mother however seems like it demands that it be approached with very specific safeguards in place. In children the parasitic stage is self terminating. Nature provides a terminus for these hormonal gateways. If the mother keeps them open artificially for long periods of time, then there are medical ethics that need to be discussed and weighed against the financial benefits.

Last edited by silentone on Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:03 am, edited 9 times in total.

HTLV-1 is often transmitted from mother to child through breastfeeding. The infected infant caries the virus for their lifetime and passes the virion to their progeny through sexual intercourse (Roucoux et al 2005) or breastfeeding. Contemporary epidemiology now also includes transfusions of blood products, contaminated needles (including acupuncture) and IV drug abuse. The duration of breastfeeding (Li et al 2004) can be a major factor in transmission rates that range between 15% and 25%. Vertical transmission from mother to child is a prominent and efficient mode of transmission and likely occurred in ancient human populations even when there was little risk of blood borne transmission. The HTLV-1 is thus an ideal migration marker, serving as a kind of historical “GPS” that tags an individual and subsequent generations.

A murine model has been developed to study maternal transmission of the temperature-sensitiveMoloney murine leukemia virus (ts-1). The goal of this study was to confirm early and latemother-to-offspring transmission of the virus and demonstrate transmission via breast milk.A series of six experiments was performed using six groups of BALB/c mice. Group 1 consistedof pups born to ts-1-infected mothers removed at birth to suckle from surrogate uninfectedmothers. Groups 2 and 5 consisted of pups born to ts-1-infected mothers that suckled fromts-1-infected mothers (surrogate and biological). Group 3 consisted of non-infected pups removedat birth to suckle from ts-1-infected mothers. Groups 4 and 6 consisted of non-infected pupssuckled from non-infected mothers. The combined in utero, intrapartum and breast-milk infectionrate was 100%to the offspring (groups 2 and 5). The in utero to early post-partum group (group 1)had an infection rate of 78 %. Breast milk alone (group 3) resulted in a 97% infection rate.Control groups (groups 4 and 6) had a 0%infection rate. The relative frequency of maternal CD4+

Variants of this virus are now present in the human population as well. The human infection is from XMRV.Nobody is sure how or when it jumped into humans yet. There have been multiple MLV/XMRV sequences found in humans in the last year. I hope people didn't get it from mouse breast milk!Wasn't that a line from a Ben Stiller movie or something?

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)